Black Economic Empowerment Blog

Ownership

March 04, 2019

This is a post that I have been wanting to write for a long time. I eventually wrote it as an article for Moneyweb, who published it on Friday and syndicated it to the Citizen (now I'm really famous). I have been mulling this over for a long time. Why is it that these BEE codes are more focused on driving a change of ownership than the broad-based emphasis they purport to advocate? It's patently obvious that everything broad-based is a falsehood. I found the answer in bolshie bob's Youth Employment Service practice note, specifically paragraph 1.13

1.13 EMEs and at least 51% Black Owned or more QSEs that participate within the Y.E.S Initiative will be verified against the Qualifying Small Enterprise Scorecard and the B-BBEE Certificate will be issued by an Accredited SANAS B-BBEE Verification Agency. This is also applicable to Sector Codes of Good Practice utilising the respective QSE Scorecard.

Here is the article. It was cleaned up a bit by a MoneyWeb editor. You'll notice that I haven't referred to bolshie bob or the awesome awdoz. Their real names are Rob Davies and Zodwa Ntuli (uppercase is an exception on this blog)

There is a very interesting clause in the practice note for the Youth Employment Service (YES) document that appears to defy any form of logic.

The YES programme is now linked to the black economic empowerment (BEE) scorecard and promises to promote companies up to two levels if they employ unemployed black youth for a period of 12 months.

The clause states that exempted micro enterprises (EMEs) or 51% black-owned qualifying small enterprises (QSEs) that wish to claim this benefit need to get measured on the full scorecard before they can benefit from the YES promotion.

For the uninitiated, an EME turns over less than R10 million per year and a QSE between R10 million and R50 million. EMEs with less than 51% black ownership are level 4 BEE contributors, 51%+ black-owned EMEs are automatically level 2, and 100% black-owned businesses are level 1 – which is the top of the BEE pile. The same levels apply to 51% black-owned and 100% black-owned QSEs. All other QSEs need to go through the rigorous, onerous and expensive process of implementing a BEE scorecard and taking the level that this process delivers.

It must be stressed that the process is costly, complicated and unlikely to deliver great results if your company has little (10% or less) or no black ownership. In my experience, a level 8 (which is the entry level to the scorecard) is pretty much what most companies would have to settle for without black ownership.

Why?

This begs the question – why would an exempt micro enterprise that is automatically a level 4 go through a verification to get to a level 7 or 8 and then embark on the YES programme to be promoted to a level 5 when they are already a level 4?

Similarly, why would a 51% black-owned QSE want to get verified in the hope that they come up with a level 3 and then go through the YES process to get to a level 1, when they are automatically a level 2?

And why would a 100% black-owned company even bother with YES?

Herein lies the conundrum. Minister of trade and industry Rob Davies has been forced to exclude smaller businesses from his YES programme even though they are the most likely employers of black youth under the YES programme.

The only logical reason he has done this is because a level 4 can get to a level 2 within a year just by employing a number of people that the business might actually need. But then this would pose a threat to black-owned level 2 and 1 businesses when it comes to state procurement.

There is a five and six preference point advantage, depending on the value of the tender, between a level 4 and a level 2 under the 2017 Preferential Procurement Policy Frameworks Act (PPPFA) regulations. This perceived threat to smaller black-owned businesses has to be mitigated against by discouraging lesser owned competitors from reaching their own BEE levels through any programme that promises a promotion of a couple of levels.

The minister himself has tacitly confirmed the onerous nature of the revised BEE scorecard by publishing a proposition that all 51%+ black-owned companies should all be promoted to level 2 irrespective of their turnover. I have a 100% black-owned client that is over the R50 million turnover threshold that could not get better than a level 5 when we took them through the whole BEE scorecard. This company would have truly appreciated the instant promotion that would have come at a fraction of the cost and hassle.

Dubious motive

These developments have me questioning the motive behind the revised BEE codes.

The department of trade and industry (dti) crowed that these codes were more broad-based than ever, stating that they will touch more of the people who need this empowerment than its predecessor.

But if this is the case then surely all companies, irrespective of ownership levels, should be involved in the process? The more companies that hire black people, train them and buy from black-owned businesses and support the black poor, the greater the impact on the economy and society in general.

Yet 51% black-owned companies that turn over less than R50 million don’t have to contribute to any of this because they aren’t measured on it.

I think the reasons behind this are simple, and I must confess that I have been unduly influenced by Institute of Race Relations CEO Dr Frans Cronje’s arguments about the national democratic revolution.

Cronje argues that the National Democratic Revolution (NDR) led by the ANC strives to rid South Africa of all the vestiges of its colonial past. Part of this process would see 51% of the entire economy in black hands. The reward for those companies reaching 51% would be that they may never have to implement a BEE scorecard at all. Everyone would be a level two or higher. And the need to support black-owned businesses and charities would disappear because all businesses would be black-owned.

Punitive

To someone like Davies, a member of the South African Communist Party, this is the purest and cleanest form of transformation.

But it is a very lofty ideal that is unlikely to be achieved in a free market economy. Those companies that do not wish to adhere to this ownership target will be forced to implement the complex BEE scorecard.

This is simply a punitive alternative. Its punitiveness is enhanced when you consider that the targets for elements like skills development, procurement and enterprise/supplier development are not only complex but extremely costly. It attempts to force smaller businesses to get to the 51% black ownership level in the quickest possible way. This pressure has resulted in many smaller white-owned businesses moving to 51% ownership through elaborate empowerment schemes that irritate BEE Commissioner Zodwa Ntuli because she is powerless to curtail them.

Once this concept is understood it becomes quite clear that the codes are less concerned about broad-based transformation and more concerned about giving black-owned businesses a massive competitive advantage over their lesser owned competitors, specifically in procurement that is subject to the PPPFA. To ensure that this advantage is maintained Davies has set up a series of codes that render it almost impossible to meet those levels when a company has to implement the BEE scorecard.

The exception that should be the rule

What is interesting though is that there is one sector code that is never expected to achieve 51% black ownership – the Financial Sector BEE Code (FSC).

This is because of listed shareholding and the requirement of the Banks Act that any shareholder with more than a 15% stake in a bank must meet certain liquidity requirements in the event that the bank requires the shareholder to bail it out.

The FSC is the only BEE code that focuses on the transformation of the entire sector by encouraging those companies to embark a wide range of initiatives that reach the largest amount of people.

I would argue that it is truly a broad-based code.

As for the other codes – they are a smokescreen and if they actually achieve any form of transformation in the future it will be an unintended consequence.

The transformation of South Africa will not come about as a result of those codes. Corporate South Africa needs to prepare to shoulder the blame from this fallout as it has for the government’s failures in the last two decades.

January 17, 2018

Whilst we wait for Cyril to do something about this abomination known as the BEE codes I might as well provide my loyal readership with a short tutorial on ownership.

Before I start I need to stress that ownership is not the answer to South Africa's problems. Well in excess of 95% of all the businesses (whether they be formal or informal) have no intrinsic value. Their value lies in the person who started that business's energy and effort. When that person dies, retires or emigrates the chances are that that business will close down. There might be some value in stock or assets but without that person running it it won't survive. I can almost see what bolshie bob is spoiling at here. He would say "I am the most useless communist and the scourge of South African business, you are speaking the truth my white monopoly capitalist wannabe. But if you do a proper handover of ownership and involve black people in the running of the business then it will survive." Too true my Bolshevik brother - but human nature isn't like that. And no amount of EAPing is going to change it. You keep on dreaming whilst you enjoy your very generous pension after you have walked away from the mayhem you have caused.

Exactly how much ownership do need so that you don't get fired a level. The short answer is 10.03%. Please look at the calculation below. We know that you need 3.2 points for net value in order not to drop a level. My rudimentary Excel skills tell me that under perfect circumstances you can get to 3.2 points under formula A with 1% ownership (Acts.co.za is now a subscription site I can't refer you to the formulas). But you won't get the 3.2 points under formula B and the rule is that the lesser result of A and B becomes the net value answer. In order to get 3.2 points under formula B you need 10.03% ownership. Obviously you will need to pay attention to the requirement under formula A to keep it at at 3.2 points.

September 04, 2017

This post was originally published in April 2013. Please excuse the indulgence of the repost. What is interesting is that certain links in the original post are now dead. I've had to look for new ones.

The BEE world is really for the good times. Empowerment likes the idea that companies make money and black shareholders get rich. It doesn't do the bad times very well, for instance if a black shareholder is unable to meet the payments for the shares then the company is penalised under the ownership scorecard. What happens if you have a black shareholder who actively does not wish to exercise his shareholder rights. In other words, what do you do with a delinquent shareholder.

Ownership is measured by both voting rights and economic interest. Lesley Fodor has in a comprehensive article on voting rights and shareholders' meetings, writes (on the issue of voting rights) - the original link has broken, sorry Lesley.

The primary rights of shareholders relate to their entitlement to vote at meetings of the shareholders. While this does not confer a direct role in management of the company (this function falling within the purview of the directors), the directors are required to implement those decisions of the shareholders, which are reserved to them.

It follows then that voting rights must be EXERCISABLE. If restrictions are found it's likely that the voting rights' points won't be awarded. If you are interested in a summary of shareholder rights have a look at this post.

That's voting rights sorted. Economic interest is simply (to quote Kyle and Vuyo, page 192) "the basic monetary right of ownership. It refers to an ENTITLEMENT of black people to dividends, capital gains and other economic rights of shareholders." The operative word is ENTITLEMENT. The word does not mean that the person needs to receive cash directly through dividends, there may be an agreement that dividends will be used to settle a debt first and only then will the shareholder get that cash. Any restriction on this entitlement would be considered in determining whether the economic interest points will be allocated. An unreasonable restriction will in all probability not make it through a verification (I really do give verification agencies a lot of credit when it comes to understanding company law).

Say now you have shareholder that is entitled to vote at a shareholders' meeting but chooses not to. I am aware of a specific case where a shareholder has a majority stake in a company and doesn't seem to get on with the other shareholders and as such doesn't vote or pitch to shareholders' meetings. There's no legal reason why he can't; it just seems that he doesn't want to. This example has an interesting issue when it comes to dividends. Dividends can only be declared when a profit is made, the company in question has yet to make a profit and as such hasn't declared a dividend. The shareholders' agreement has this to say on distribution of dividends.

The shareholders shall procure that the Company shall….. declare and pay dividends equal to a percentage, to be determined and recommended by the board of directors, of the distributable profits of the Company.

This was a problematic paragraph for me but I spoke to two lawyers who both confirmed that the directors cannot distribute dividends on a whim contrary to the percentage shareholding of each shareholder. In other words if you own 25% then you will get 25%.

In this case we have a shareholder who doesn't want to vote and who has never received a dividend because the company hasn't made any money yet. This same shareholder would be described as black and therefore is very beneficial to the company's BEE credentials. That's where the simplicity stops. The company's BEE scorecard considers four other elements and ignores the ownership element – even though the company is in fact (and in law) 51% black owned. It would seem that the verification agency refused to consider this element because they could not interview the shareholder – a requirement that comes from the Udge-approved verification manual; viz paragraph 7.1.6 which states that a verification agency must

Interview a sample of the black shareholders to determine whether they understand their voting rights and whether they have exercised such voting rights independently

This cannot be regarded as fair on the company. There are no restrictions on the ownership in any shape or form, it is only the personality of the shareholder that gets in the way of the allocation of ownership points. Unfortunately there is nothing in any of the BEE information including Vuyo's Book (he does like Black with an uppercase B) that anticipates this situation even though I would suggest it is very common.

We need a solution; what I recommend is that the company follows the procedural guidelines listed by BDO and Fodor and if the shareholder chooses not to attend then that shareholder has not been denied their rights. This is the same argument that I have put forward for this case.

April 06, 2017

The person who thought of this scheme is cleverer than me, I think I need to apply for apprenticeship in her office (if it is in fact a her). This structure was explained to me about a year and a half ago by a guy who had got it from someone in Bloem. It is an application of the modified flow through principle which needs to be explainedModified flow through principle (MFT)The modified flow through principle applies to any BEE owned or controlled company. "BEE controlled company" means a juristic person, having share holding or similar members’ interest in which black participants enjoy a right to EXERCISABLE VOTING RIGHTS that is at least 51% of the total such rights measured using the flow through principle.“BEE owned company" means a juristic person, having share holding or similar members’ interest, that is BEE controlled, in which black participants enjoy a right to ECONOMIC INTEREST that is at least 51% of the total such rights measured using the flow through principle.

It follows that a BEE owned company is placed higher in the ownership hierarchy as this company enjoys both black voting rights and economic interest.

Yes but also note…..A 51% black owned entity must enjoy 51% of the voting rights and economic interest AND have earned all the points for Net Value. The simple way to view this is that the shares must be paid for, the formula tends to favour this approach.

We know that for once in the ownership chain, if the exclusion principle is not used (I'll let you trawl through bolshie's bollocks to figure what this is), the 51% black owned may be viewed as being 100% owned.

Back to the diagram. I think this structure is best suited for businesses that turn over less than R50m and have few assets in the company, in other words the assets reside in a vehicle outside the company, a thing which is very commonplace in many businesses. The reason why I say this is that the rules state that you cannot claim the 51% ownership until all the net value points have been awarded. I'll talk a little bit more about this earlier.

Let's say the proverbial measured entity (PME) needs to get to that holy grail of ownership which is 51% for now, but watch out for gross arbitrariness from the incompetently run state owned entities that might change this level on a whim. This is the route they might follow.

Establish a company called Holding Company. Shareholders of this company need to be 51% black and the balance held by the shareholders of the PME. If a trust is established for this purpose the beneficiaries must be 100% black as defined. If it is any less than that you can use the MFT to make sure that Holding is 51% black owned but the MFT ends there.

Holding company buys 51% of PME. The original shareholders hold 49% of PME.

The application of the MFT says that PME is now 51% black owned, subject to the conditions of measuring net value.

There you go. Simple so far. There are technicalities that you need to consider.

The true definition of 51% black ownership means that the shares must be paid for. Holding company is a start-up and worth nothing, there is no reason why the black shareholders should be indebted at that level. In fact Holding does nothing other than own PME or any other company. It doesn't need to register for VAT and it doesn't trade.

This also applies to the ownership of PME. The codes say that in order to claim 51% black ownership all the net value points must be awarded.

On the issue raised by a and b, my good friend David says the shares should be given away. If the company has no assets then it's not worth that much anyway.

Note that the DTI declaration states that the PME is 51% black owned. See the definition of black owned above, if the shares are indebted in any shape or form then that is quite possibly fraud. There's nothing stopping anyone checking a little deeper to take a look at this. I would go with what David suggests here. Give the shares away to Holding.

It's quite difficult for anyone looking at your BEE declaration to know that the modified flow through principle has been used.

This structure is code-worthy. It's messy and requires the management of two companies but it gets you to that level 2. Now the only issue is the incompetent SOEs insisting on BEE certificates when affidavits will do. As an aside - surely I don't need to precede SOEs with the word incompetent, it's implied. Our dear BEE Commissioner sis zod has addressed this in her surprisingly well written the Whistle. I'll let you find it and read it yourself.

And on a completely un-related note, other than SOEs and their predilection for state capture, this document is a discussion of the guptas, zuma and bell pottinger. Read it and puke.

June 27, 2013

Is there anything good in the world of BEE at all. No, not much. All that is good is forgotten about and all this is bad is used by both the minister and the advisory council to entrench racial polarisation. But I digress. The issue here is when do you measure ownership? Is it ownership that existed during the measurement period, or is it on the date of measurement. Something as critical as this is not discussed in the codes and Vuyo's labour of love doesn't appear to discuss this either. This is what EmpowerFlex thinks

A Bee verification is mostly or in terms of the monetary elements skills, procurement, enterprise development and socio-economic development based on your previous financial period. As for ownership, management and employment equity it is measured as at present or as close to present as possible.

The above is so as the verification manual along with SANAS requires verification agencies to conduct an interview for example with a shareholder in his/her capacity as a shareholder. If this interview is not possible or the person is no longer a shareholder and can therefore not conduct such an interview in his/her capacity as a shareholder then no points may be allocated.

The two underlined paragraphs are significant because there is no written documentation that confirms this. Yes there is the verification manual (which IRBA seems to disregard). The bit about the shareholder in their capacity as a shareholder is not date-stamped. All that paragraph 7.1.6 of the ownership part of the manual says is

Interview a sample of black shareholders whether they understand their voting rights and whether they have exercised such voting rights independently.

This does not mean that they have to have been shareholders on the date of verification. It means that whilst they were shareholders they understood their rights. You can't take the piss here and say "well JZ was a shareholder three years ago so let's interview him". The shareholder must have been a shareholder during the period we are measuring. The next mystery is how much of the period did they need to be shareholders for? I believe my good friend Gerhardus has an answer which goes along the lines of you prorate the points according to the period they had shareholding – which is fair. The calculation would be, shareholders exited after six months of the year, their shareholding would have contributed 20 points so your calculation comes up with a score that is 50% of the 20 points. But again this is not documented so a practise needs to arise that establishes this as acceptable.

I have been told that SANAS will allow you to consider ownership if it ended about a month before the verification, this in itself is arbitrary – why not any time less than 12 months?

It's very clear that the verification manual does not prescribe when the ownership needs to exist but I believe that the real problem lies with SANAS who have now decreed that this is how it's going to work, but the decree does not exist in writing. This is unfair – if this process exists and is prescribed by an organ of state like SANAS then these procedures and prescriptions must be made available and not arbitrarily imposed. The legality of this is dubious.

Let's go back to management and employment equity as per EmpowerSex. Why should those be measured as close to the verification date as possible? The verification requires agencies to consult the company's EEA2 and the COR documents – which are typically historical document. Yes it does say that interviews need to be conducted but that's almost in conflict with the EEA2 requirement. Also a verification agency will check the payroll which is determined on the measurement period , not on the date of verification. The only document that I can find that might help us here is the Interpretive Guide to the Codes of Good Practice which says on page 56 (referring to management)

this employee will not be accounted for under the measured enterprise's employment equity element for the year under measurement

Is this not VERY clear that we are talking about a measurement period and that we measure the performance under that year. Can you imagine if an auditor decided to not consider the profit for a financial year but chose to use the figure that existed on the date of the audit. It's as ridiculous as that.

Whilst I don't agree with EmpowerRedNex I would appreciate a uniform measurement regime which will allow all of us that are subject to the codes a little certainty when it comes to determining our BEE status.

April 03, 2013

This post was originally published in April 2013. Please excuse the indulgence of the repost. What is interesting is that certain links in the original post are now dead. I've had to look for new ones.

The BEE world is really for the good times. Empowerment likes the idea that companies make money and black shareholders get rich. It doesn't do the bad times very well, for instance if a black shareholder is unable to meet the payments for the shares then the company is penalised under the ownership scorecard. What happens if you have a black shareholder who actively does not wish to exercise his shareholder rights. In other words, what do you do with a delinquent shareholder.

Ownership is measured by both voting rights and economic interest. Lesley Fodor has in a comprehensive article on voting rights and shareholders' meetings, writes (on the issue of voting rights) - the original link has broken, sorry Lesley.

The primary rights of shareholders relate to their entitlement to vote at meetings of the shareholders. While this does not confer a direct role in management of the company (this function falling within the purview of the directors), the directors are required to implement those decisions of the shareholders, which are reserved to them.

It follows then that voting rights must be EXERCISABLE. If restrictions are found it's likely that the voting rights' points won't be awarded. If you are interested in a summary of shareholder rights have a look at this post.

That's voting rights sorted. Economic interest is simply (to quote Kyle and Vuyo, page 192) "the basic monetary right of ownership. It refers to an ENTITLEMENT of black people to dividends, capital gains and other economic rights of shareholders." The operative word is ENTITLEMENT. The word does not mean that the person needs to receive cash directly through dividends, there may be an agreement that dividends will be used to settle a debt first and only then will the shareholder get that cash. Any restriction on this entitlement would be considered in determining whether the economic interest points will be allocated. An unreasonable restriction will in all probability not make it through a verification (I really do give verification agencies a lot of credit when it comes to understanding company law).

Say now you have shareholder that is entitled to vote at a shareholders' meeting but chooses not to. I am aware of a specific case where a shareholder has a majority stake in a company and doesn't seem to get on with the other shareholders and as such doesn't vote or pitch to shareholders' meetings. There's no legal reason why he can't; it just seems that he doesn't want to. This example has an interesting issue when it comes to dividends. Dividends can only be declared when a profit is made, the company in question has yet to make a profit and as such hasn't declared a dividend. The shareholders' agreement has this to say on distribution of dividends.

The shareholders shall procure that the Company shall….. declare and pay dividends equal to a percentage, to be determined and recommended by the board of directors, of the distributable profits of the Company.

This was a problematic paragraph for me but I spoke to two lawyers who both confirmed that the directors cannot distribute dividends on a whim contrary to the percentage shareholding of each shareholder. In other words if you own 25% then you will get 25%.

In this case we have a shareholder who doesn't want to vote and who has never received a dividend because the company hasn't made any money yet. This same shareholder would be described as black and therefore is very beneficial to the company's BEE credentials. That's where the simplicity stops. The company's BEE scorecard considers four other elements and ignores the ownership element – even though the company is in fact (and in law) 51% black owned. It would seem that the verification agency refused to consider this element because they could not interview the shareholder – a requirement that comes from the Udge-approved verification manual; viz paragraph 7.1.6 which states that a verification agency must

Interview a sample of the black shareholders to determine whether they understand their voting rights and whether they have exercised such voting rights independently

This cannot be regarded as fair on the company. There are no restrictions on the ownership in any shape or form, it is only the personality of the shareholder that gets in the way of the allocation of ownership points. Unfortunately there is nothing in any of the BEE information including Vuyo's Book (he does like Black with an uppercase B) that anticipates this situation even though I would suggest it is very common.

We need a solution; what I recommend is that the company follows the procedural guidelines listed by BDO and Fodor and if the shareholder chooses not to attend then that shareholder has not been denied their rights. This is the same argument that I have put forward for this case.

September 05, 2010

Picture the scene – a newly despised BEE beneficiary is being interviewed by a journalist. The antagonism towards this person increases with every interview, but the beneficiary maintains his composure consistently. The interview now turns to the fact that the BEE deal might not generate that many points. Cue in interview.

BR: Some of the BEE score agencies rate it as not a particularly good deal with low scores.

SZ: (Defends himself – although it’s not clear what he is saying.)

The transaction is not completed, that’s the problem. As ArcelorMittal has indicated, they have only now just commissioned a rating agency to do their scoring. This thing is not an overnight thing, it’s a process, and in the fullness of time I think people will be very pleased indeed that this transaction would score highly.

I probably let this article go by although I was very aware that BEE’s most recognised “expert” had blogged about the deal and hence must have passed this information onto the press (who seem to rate his and Udge's opinions). Said “expert” had suggested that the deal was worth 4.95 points. I let that go too because this deal has very little to do with points and everything to do with currying favour with Zuma. To quote Justice Malala

Poor Nonkululeko Nyembezi-Heita. Just when the ArcelorMittal SA CEO thought she had bought herself political cover — through a black empowerment deal in which family and friends of the president become instant billionaires — it now emerges President Jacob Zuma may be shown the door. What is a woman to do? Is she going to do another deal with the friends and benefactors of the incoming lot?

But a reader sent me an email pointing out the error in this “expert’s” opinion

Levenstein has (no) knowledge of Code 100. The Mittal deal is worth around 17 points. He does not understand the difference between net equity and economic interest, nor does he have the slightest comprehension of vendor financing.

The Levenstein referred to here is the leader of Eco nob ee, self-professed providers of numerous products, courses and high quality BEE consulting. To the rest of us he is close to the laughing stock of the BEE world – not very clued up and a source of much mirth with his (very regular) misguided warblings.

Actually dear reader, Levenstein’s misguided expertise extends far beyond a lack of understanding of the most basic principles contained in Code 100. He has no idea of how to make use of mandated investments and where to include them in any ownership calculation. Compound this with his general knowledge of law, the constitution etc you really begin to wonder what on earth this person is an expert on – because it certainly ain’t black economic empowerment.

I asked a few verification agencies to come back with a score on this deal based on the same information Levenstein other had access to or could have had access to. And this is what they came back with

I know that Levestein won’t agree with this and will probably come running back with the Gupta’s shareholding and how this impacts on the deal (he remains convinced about his brilliance). But then we can’t expect Levenstein to understand that the Gupta’s shareholding actually makes no difference to the score and this is because of the mandated investments in ArcellorMittal itself.

ArcelorMittal is listed on the stock exchanges of Paris (MT), Amsterdam (MT), New York (MT), Brussels (MT), Luxembourg (MT) and on the Spanish stock exchanges of Barcelona, Bilbao, Madrid and Valencia (MTS).

The mandated investment rule actually allows us to exclude mandated investments up to 40% of the available shares. Even if we excluded 20% of these mandated investments then we’d be looking at 26% of 80%.

September 01, 2010

What a labour of love. I was sent this document by Mzwandile Jacks this afternoon for comment. What can you say to this - it's a JSE commissioned report and it comes up with an effective 18% black ownership of the JSE (this is vs the 24% that Solidarity came up with).

The JSE got Trevor Chandler and Associates to do this. Whilst I have not heard of Trevor, I completely agree with the methodology used. Most importantly, and Russel Loubser is at pains to point this out,

The percentages evidenced through the study include only persons who are, with current data, able to be established to be black and exclude black economic interests in mandated investments. It is therefore likely that further analysis will indicate more extensive black shareholding of companies listed on the JSE.We also don’t have accurate figures on retail investors as race segmentation is not a requirement when opening a brokerage account.

Those two points are valid

They had to prove that the people owning the shares were black

They did not use retail investor information

The latter point is very significant, I recently conducted a study for a listed company and went through the shareholders' register looking for Dlaminis, Septembers and Naidoos who were shareholders. There was one trust that had a Zulu name that was for the benefit of a director's family (decidedly white). You cannot determine ownership based on this - you would end up excluding such luminaries as Dipuo Peters and Ngconde Balfour.

Now it is a simple matter of time before the ANC-aligned BMF accuses the JSE of extreme colonialism, racism and other unfounded bollocks whilst denying the veracity of these figures.

January 07, 2010

Chief operating officer of empowerment rating agency AQRate KZN Brigitte Brun said yesterday that the recession had a “helluva impact” on BEE deals. A lot of them that have been finalised have resulted in little real empowerment as black investors have been left with a huge debt burden. She said this year “either deals will be structured differently or there will be fewer deals”.

Forgive me Brigitte, I am quoting something that is attributed to you and I haven't checked whether you did say it.

Since when does a huge debt burden not create real empowerment. Do you mean that if they paid cash for the shares or got them for free they'd be fully empowered? This is the way I understand this quote.

This is rubbish - the operative word here is INVESTOR. And INVESTOR put money into something with an eye on a return on this investment. At worst they could lose all their money - such is the nature of economics and capitalism. Why do so many people assume that if black investors accept a risk then they are not truly empowered? Is it because the codes award the full number of realisation points if the 25%+ is paid off? Even this is completely flawed.

We have to move from this mindset. If a person is a shareholder (just like it is in the real world) then they mustbe regarded as empowered - they are shareholders which is one better position in the empowerment scale!

Drop this notion and let's see if we generate some real wealth across the board. Real wealth will only come from a balancing of risk and reward - there's been a little too much reward going around.

December 09, 2009

It's made the press again -in fact it's made a lot of press. I was referred to the Business Day report by Robert Simmonds. This report concentrated on the beneficiaries, 20% of whom are SAB's lower paid white employees. And once again Mr Obvious (one Ajay Lalu) is asked for his opinion - to which he replies “Unfortunately, according to the codes of good practice, white beneficiaries don’t qualify,” Er....... tell us something we don't know Ajay. So what if they don't get any points for this deal - what SAB hopes to achieve is the financial independence of their staff and sundry other players.

And then not to be outdone ol' Aj "criticised the fact that there was no guarantee on the value of the stakes at the end of the 10-year lock-in period." He might have been taken a bit out of context here so I'll cut our hero a little slack - but just in case AjLal is not that clued up about these things I'll explain it for him. RISK AND REWARD OLD MAN, CAPITALISM IS ALL ABOUT RISK AND REWARD.

SAB is a fascinating deal, it stands out as the only one where the
business reasons are so apparent. We know that the Western Cape is clamping down
on unlicensed taverns and 70% of SAB's turnover comes from unlicensed
taverns. Here is SAB staring at the potential demise of their biggest
channel unless they do something. Sheer brilliance, if I may use such
a superlative.

And I still think it's the best deal done so far, in spite of what Fawu says. Let them strike I say - just make sure that you suck on Windhoek Lager at the end of the day of hard toyi-toying.